Okay, I will be honest.Many years ago, myself and pooter and deveyn came up with an idea to form a non profit entity to host the worlds biggest fark party, in las vegas. The reasons for wanting to do a non profit were many, but mostly due to the fact that we wanted the liquor / beer money to go to us, instead of outside vendors, so we could then funnel said money to real actual charities. I wont get into the nasty details as to why MY idea got shot down and how you folks ended up with whatever the hell you did end up with as far as a world fark party, but my only goal was to have a great time and raise money for things that needed it. I was planning, and all involved agreed- we would only take so much as what it cost to run, plus time. I , myself, would have made about 3 grand.That said- alleged non profits need to be better scrutinised, and this place is clearly trying to use the law to game the system.

I have grown up and lived near retirement communities, I have, long ago, lost all respect for them. They want to be able to buy homes in certain areas and not pay taxes that would benefit things like schools and infrastructure for later generations. One of the claims they make is that they, "don't have children in public schools" therefore they shouldn't have to pay taxes that support local school districts. Even though, admittedly, their children to not attend these schools yet their grandchildren do.

I work for a Not-For-Profit organization, and no, they can't keep that kind of profit if they hope to retain their Not-For-Profit status. We have to reinvest the vast majority of any annual profit we might make into construction projects to expand the organization, give some away to charity, etc. We are only allowed to keep a small amount as a "rainy day"-type fund, to help in case of economic downturn.

If the Government sent auditors to look over this company's books, odds are their NFP status would be pulled in short order, assuming no back-room deals were made.

That's 98mm in revenue, nitwitmitter. Not profit. And that revenue is not from the one facility mentioned. It comes from 17 facilities. But carry on with the hate. The truth is, Kirkwood wants them there, because of the jobs they provide and the money the wrinklies spend in the community. The schools are just trying to make a money grab. Maybe they'll win, maybe not. But that's all it is.

MmmmBacon:I work for a Not-For-Profit organization, and no, they can't keep that kind of profit if they hope to retain their Not-For-Profit status. We have to reinvest the vast majority of any annual profit we might make into construction projects to expand the organization, give some away to charity, etc. We are only allowed to keep a small amount as a "rainy day"-type fund, to help in case of economic downturn.

Are the legal limits to how much cash you're allowed to keep within the organization to retain non-profit status?

It does. But this is FARK. And regardless of how many posts point out how badly subby failed, a good sized chunk of posters down the thread will go the rest of their lives believing that this outfit has $98 million in profits.

Philbb:I have grown up and lived near retirement communities, I have, long ago, lost all respect for them. They want to be able to buy homes in certain areas and not pay taxes that would benefit things like schools and infrastructure for later generations. One of the claims they make is that they, "don't have children in public schools" therefore they shouldn't have to pay taxes that support local school districts. Even though, admittedly, their children to not attend these schools yet their grandchildren do.

On the other hand the school district will probably just waste the money (Like L.A.) on TV stations, multimillion dollar campuses and exorbitant 6 figure salaries for administrators and staff. None of which have done anything to improve student performance.

More power to anybody who legally avoids paying more taxes than they have to. Government has a spending problem not a lack of revenue problem.

FARK the retirement community and their greasy administrators. The original paperwork clearly stated they would pay taxes, and now they want out? It's a whole different issue if this were a pre-construction proposal, but the place was approved and built based on their agreement to pay taxes.

If the city loses, I would go with an earlier poster's suggestion--just put a toll booth in front the main gate and charge $500 per axle. And that would include food delivery trucks.

When the company first pitched the idea of Aberdeen Heights to the City of Kirkwood, it presented a 350 page document explaining why issuing bonds would be a great idea. On page 165 it states that it fully intended to pay property taxes and estimated taxes this year alone would be $935,000.

these guys are almost as bad as sports team owners looking for a new stadium to be built.

When the company first pitched the idea of Aberdeen Heights to the City of Kirkwood, it presented a 350 page document explaining why issuing bonds would be a great idea. On page 165 it states that it fully intended to pay property taxes and estimated taxes this year alone would be $935,000.

Polzin said that line item may have said property taxes but that wasn't the intent. He explained, "there would have never been intent to pay taxes or property taxes.... this is the money that we would budget in a feasibility study to cover any payment in lieu of taxes."

Well, which is it? "Fully intended" or "never intended?" You can't lie out of both orifices without imploding.The city should sue to recover the taxes.